Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory
Conflicts involve multiple people, each with their own personal and relationship conflict histories. These histories and how they frame and influence conflict can be examined using Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. CMM was developed by Pearce and Cronen and is "concerned with how individuals organize, manage, and coordinate their meanings and actions with one another" (1). The theory states, "the interpretations of a conversation or message is shaped by the context or nature of the relationship between the parties as well as the self-concept and culture of each individual" (1). Since each individual brings a different history and meanings, then conversation and its meanings will always be unique. If the individuals involved in a conversation share similar histories and worldviews then they will likely arrive at similar meanings. CMM Theory explains for how both parties contribute to meaning in conversations, messages, or conflicts and how this contributes to understanding of meanings. Cushman argues that Pearce and Cronen were interested in the unscripted drama metaphor and were concerned with the "myriad ways that participants in the unscripted drama of life act toward, with, and against each other" (4). This learned knowledge as Fisher-Yoshida, points out, "is based on the belief that this articulation [of better understanding of meanings between individuals] will lead toward the making of better social worlds" (3).
CMM is based on the idea that individuals organize meaning into up to seven levels that can be structured into pyramid form. The levels range from broad to specific and "demonstrate that the many layers of meaning that we coordinate to create coherence in interpreting specific messages and actions" (1). Brenders argues that Pearce and Cronen wanted to make sure the analysis of communication differentiated among levels of meaning so they "proposed various hierarchies of meaning, from four to seven levels deep, linked by constitutive rules that determine how meanings at a higher level determine meanings at a lower level" (2).
Cultural patterns are the broadest aspect, and level, of meaning and involve an individual's cultural experiences and how they influence how experiences are viewed and understood. The next level is life scripts and involves and individual's expectations about what will happen in life. The next level of meaning deal with the individual that you interact with at a specific point in time and your agreed upon relationship. Level four is episodes, which focus on the "communicative routines people view as distinct wholes" (4). The next three levels: speech acts, content, and raw data focus on a particular message that a individual has produced.
These levels are used to understand how the different types of histories of individuals affect conflict. CMM states that constitutive rules will decide how meanings at one level determine meanings at another level. This interpretation leads to action and determination of an appropriate response. CMM argues that another factor, "regulative rules specify what acts are appropriate given the nature of the relationship, the epodes, and what the other person has said" (1). As individual's rules become intertwined, their meanings and actions become coordinated. Coordination might not mean agreement but means that the parties do not think that the event or conversation has a different meaning to each party.
CMM has lead to the idea that intergroup differences, social differences and stereotypes, may influence conflicts. Once these cultural patterns "are activated and become important to parties, they influence interpretation of episodes, speech acts, and content" (1). This means that the original conflict could get hijacked and then focuses on the important intergroup difference.
Criticisms of CMM is that the concept of meanings may be "interpreted as much too broad or much too confining, depending upon how one reads Pearce's definitions" (2). Brenders also argues that they do not make enough mention of different languages and how they influence meaning and understanding only touch on the fact that "we all learn a different set of rules" (2).
References
(1) Folger, Joseph P, Marshall S. Poole, and Randall K. Stutman. Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations. Boston: Pearson Education, 2009. Print.
(2) Brenders, David A. "Fallacies In The Coordinated Management Of Meaning: A Philosophy Of Language Critique Of The Hierarchical Organization Of Coherent Conversation And Related Theory." Quarterly Journal Of Speech 73.3 (1987): 329-48. ERIC. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.
(3) Fisher-Yoshida, Beth. "Chapter 4: Transformative Learning in Participative Processes That Reframe Self-Identity." Counterpoints341.INNOVATIONS IN TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING: Space, Culture, & the Arts (2009): 65-85. JSTOR. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.
(4) Cushman, Donald P., and Branislav Kovačić. Watershed Research Traditions in Human Communication Theory. Albany, NY: State U of New York, 1995. Web.
Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory
Conflicts involve multiple people, each with their own personal and relationship conflict histories. These histories and how they frame and influence conflict can be examined using Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. CMM was developed by Pearce and Cronen and is "concerned with how individuals organize, manage, and coordinate their meanings and actions with one another" (1). The theory states, "the interpretations of a conversation or message is shaped by the context or nature of the relationship between the parties as well as the self-concept and culture of each individual" (1). Since each individual brings a different history and meanings, then conversation and its meanings will always be unique. If the individuals involved in a conversation share similar histories and worldviews then they will likely arrive at similar meanings. CMM Theory explains for how both parties contribute to meaning in conversations, messages, or conflicts and how this contributes to understanding of meanings. Cushman argues that Pearce and Cronen were interested in the unscripted drama metaphor and were concerned with the "myriad ways that participants in the unscripted drama of life act toward, with, and against each other" (4). This learned knowledge as Fisher-Yoshida, points out, "is based on the belief that this articulation [of better understanding of meanings between individuals] will lead toward the making of better social worlds" (3).
CMM is based on the idea that individuals organize meaning into up to seven levels that can be structured into pyramid form. The levels range from broad to specific and "demonstrate that the many layers of meaning that we coordinate to create coherence in interpreting specific messages and actions" (1). Brenders argues that Pearce and Cronen wanted to make sure the analysis of communication differentiated among levels of meaning so they "proposed various hierarchies of meaning, from four to seven levels deep, linked by constitutive rules that determine how meanings at a higher level determine meanings at a lower level" (2).
Cultural patterns are the broadest aspect, and level, of meaning and involve an individual's cultural experiences and how they influence how experiences are viewed and understood. The next level is life scripts and involves and individual's expectations about what will happen in life. The next level of meaning deal with the individual that you interact with at a specific point in time and your agreed upon relationship. Level four is episodes, which focus on the "communicative routines people view as distinct wholes" (4). The next three levels: speech acts, content, and raw data focus on a particular message that a individual has produced.
These levels are used to understand how the different types of histories of individuals affect conflict. CMM states that constitutive rules will decide how meanings at one level determine meanings at another level. This interpretation leads to action and determination of an appropriate response. CMM argues that another factor, "regulative rules specify what acts are appropriate given the nature of the relationship, the epodes, and what the other person has said" (1). As individual's rules become intertwined, their meanings and actions become coordinated. Coordination might not mean agreement but means that the parties do not think that the event or conversation has a different meaning to each party.
CMM has lead to the idea that intergroup differences, social differences and stereotypes, may influence conflicts. Once these cultural patterns "are activated and become important to parties, they influence interpretation of episodes, speech acts, and content" (1). This means that the original conflict could get hijacked and then focuses on the important intergroup difference.
Criticisms of CMM is that the concept of meanings may be "interpreted as much too broad or much too confining, depending upon how one reads Pearce's definitions" (2). Brenders also argues that they do not make enough mention of different languages and how they influence meaning and understanding only touch on the fact that "we all learn a different set of rules" (2).
References
(1) Folger, Joseph P, Marshall S. Poole, and Randall K. Stutman. Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations. Boston: Pearson Education, 2009. Print.
(2) Brenders, David A. "Fallacies In The Coordinated Management Of Meaning: A Philosophy Of Language Critique Of The Hierarchical Organization Of Coherent Conversation And Related Theory." Quarterly Journal Of Speech 73.3 (1987): 329-48. ERIC. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.
(3) Fisher-Yoshida, Beth. "Chapter 4: Transformative Learning in Participative Processes That Reframe Self-Identity." Counterpoints341.INNOVATIONS IN TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING: Space, Culture, & the Arts (2009): 65-85. JSTOR. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.
(4) Cushman, Donald P., and Branislav Kovačić. Watershed Research Traditions in Human Communication Theory. Albany, NY: State U of New York, 1995. Web.